GR L 10508; (November, 1960) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-10508; November 29, 1960
PO ENG TRADING, petitioner, vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, respondent.
FACTS
On May 25, 1954, petitioner Po Eng Trading opened a letter of credit for the importation of 42 cases of rubber boots from Hongkong. The shipment arrived on July 14, 1954, and was declared in the entry as “Rubber Boots for Miners,” supported by documents (Bill of Lading, Commercial Invoice, Joint Certificate of Origin, Consular Invoice, and Central Bank Release Certificate No. RC 8367) all describing the goods identically. The Central Bank Release Certificate classified the goods under Commodity Code No. 850112, designated for “Boots, Rubber (for miners only).” Upon examination on July 23, 1954, Customs found that 13 of the cases contained rubber boots for ladies and children, not for miners. Consequently, these 13 cases were seized for violating Central Bank Circular No. 44 in relation to Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code. The petitioner paid the estimated duties and tax on the entire shipment and posted a surety bond to secure the release of the 13 cases. The Commissioner of Customs ordered the forfeiture of the 13 cases, ruling that rubber boots for ladies and children did not fall under the authorized Commodity Code. The Court of Tax Appeals affirmed this decision.
ISSUE
1. Whether the imported rubber boots for ladies and children are of “prohibited importation” since they do not fall under Commodity Code No. 850112 (for miners only).
2. Whether said boots may be forfeited under Central Bank Circular No. 44 in relation to Sections 1363(f) and 1419 of the Revised Administrative Code.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision, ruling against the petitioner.
1. The rubber boots for ladies and children are of prohibited importation. Commodity Code No. 850112 specifically authorizes importation only for “Boots, Rubber (for miners only).” The boots in question, admitted by the petitioner to be ordinary boots for ladies and children, are clearly outside this classification. The Court applied the principle inclusio unius est exclusio alterius; goods not included in the Central Bank’s Statistical Classification of Commodities implementing Circular No. 44 are not authorized for importation. The boots were deemed to fall under the “Unclassified List Category,” the importation of which is banned.
2. The boots are subject to forfeiture. Central Bank Circular No. 44, issued pursuant to Republic Act No. 265 , has the force and effect of law and operates as a customs law. It requires a Central Bank release certificate for the release of any merchandise. Since the certificate presented authorized only rubber boots “for miners,” the importation of boots for ladies and children was prohibited. Therefore, under Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code, which provides for the forfeiture of merchandise of prohibited importation, the seizure and forfeiture were lawful. The Collector of Customs has the duty to prevent the importation of merchandise not meeting legal conditions.